I have just been saying it out loud...

"A Roman ampitheater is necessary for a water fountain...thats not right... A water fountain is sufficient but not neccessary for a Roman Apitheater...well the sentence just said a Roman Ampitheater MUST have a water fountain... So it must be, A water fountain is necessary for a Roman Ampitheater. If the ampitheater does not contain a water fountain then it is not a Roman Ampitheater."

Roman Ampitheater -> Water Fountain

/Water Fountain -> /Roman Ampitheater

This concept took me 4 weeks to get the hang of it but saying it outloud really helps and of course drilling...drilling...drilling!

Lawgic is crucial in later lessons. I skipped this module and the idea of Lawgic thinking the same thing, it is not important. However, just like everything on this test, it does end up being important in saving time but it just takes practice and drilling to get it down! You got this, just stick with it!

Your analysis of 5.1 does make sense, however, remember that our outside knowledge has no place in these questions! The premise is supposed to support the conclusion and the claim does that. The claim told us that the kid knows that "... doing what is not permitted without first seeking permission is wrong". So does that premise support the conclusion that the kid knew he was wrong? Yes it does!